On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way
to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than
exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but
true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
Just had this rejected, presumably as a continuation of some sort of personal vendetta, as 'off topic':
On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way
to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than
exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but
true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
I cannot imagine any thing more on topic actually than such a pertinent question with substantial legal consequences.
Have the moderators no idea at all of what the group is for?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n2uorpFt543U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had this rejected, presumably as a continuation of some sort of personal
vendetta, as 'off topic':
On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way
to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than
exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but
true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
I cannot imagine any thing more on topic actually than such a pertinent
question with substantial legal consequences.
Have the moderators no idea at all of what the group is for?
As is obvious to all but three people, that thread has gone on for far
too long.
As the other two are moderators, if you wish to continue boring
everyone to death, the solution seems fairly obvious.
You're going to have to apply to be a moderator yourself; so you can
then pass your own posts before any other moderator can block them
bb
On 30/03/2026 10:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n2uorpFt543U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had this rejected, presumably as a continuation of some sort of
personal
vendetta, as 'off topic':
On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way >>>>> to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than
exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but
true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
I cannot imagine any thing more on topic actually than such a pertinent
question with substantial legal consequences.
Have the moderators no idea at all of what the group is for?
As is obvious to all but three people, that thread has gone on for far
too long.
As the other two are moderators, if you wish to continue boring
everyone to death, the solution seems fairly obvious.
You're going to have to apply to be a moderator yourself; so you can
then pass your own posts before any other moderator can block them
Just one thing, you're not obliged to read anything on the group.
If you do, it's entirely your choice.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n2uvb7F6iaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/03/2026 10:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n2uorpFt543U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had this rejected, presumably as a continuation of some sort of
personal
vendetta, as 'off topic':
On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way >>>>>> to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than
exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but >>>>>> true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
I cannot imagine any thing more on topic actually than such a pertinent >>>> question with substantial legal consequences.
Have the moderators no idea at all of what the group is for?
As is obvious to all but three people, that thread has gone on for far
too long.
As the other two are moderators, if you wish to continue boring
everyone to death, the solution seems fairly obvious.
You're going to have to apply to be a moderator yourself; so you can
then pass your own posts before any other moderator can block them
Just one thing, you're not obliged to read anything on the group.
If you do, it's entirely your choice.
No, But the moderators are obliged, to read all of your posts.
Norman, you are just Roland's and Simon's plaything.
You are being used.
They are simply taking advantage of you, for their own ends.
A situation which could carry on indefinitely; unless
another moderator steps in and gets in there first
On 30/03/2026 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n2uvb7F6iaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/03/2026 10:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n2uorpFt543U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had this rejected, presumably as a continuation of some sort of >>>>> personal
vendetta, as 'off topic':
On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way >>>>>>> to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than >>>>>>> exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but >>>>>>> true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
I cannot imagine any thing more on topic actually than such a pertinent >>>>> question with substantial legal consequences.
Have the moderators no idea at all of what the group is for?
As is obvious to all but three people, that thread has gone on for far >>>> too long.
As the other two are moderators, if you wish to continue boring
everyone to death, the solution seems fairly obvious.
You're going to have to apply to be a moderator yourself; so you can
then pass your own posts before any other moderator can block them
Just one thing, you're not obliged to read anything on the group.
If you do, it's entirely your choice.
No, But the moderators are obliged, to read all of your posts.
No they aren't. They don't have to. It's entirely their choice.
So don't expect me to go 'poor things'.
ulm is supposed to be a discussion forum for those who want to discuss legal matters, which the entire thread has been about, including my rejected post. You from the outside should have no objection to others going on 'far too long', unless you are by nature controlling.
Anyway, if threads do get long, it's usually because of trolling non-answers to relevant points and deliberate non-clarifications. But it means the discussion is ongoing and, unless it has rambled off-topic (which my post certainly wasn't), it should be facilitated, not curtailed by bored and boring
moderators simply because they can't be arsed to moderate properly.
Norman, you are just Roland's and Simon's plaything.
You are being used.
They are simply taking advantage of you, for their own ends.
I am well aware of Roland's trolling, his drip-feeding of information, non-answering of relevant questions (such as his interest in the estate we've
been talking about), and constantly moving goalposts. I am also aware of the
generally offensive, abusive nature of Mr Parker, and his reams of cut-and-paste (because he can, presumably) with no actual analysis.
I live, however, in optimistic hope of some improvement.
A situation which could carry on indefinitely; unless
another moderator steps in and gets in there first
What's it to you? As I said, you don't have to read it unless you want to.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n2v6q9F1aokU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/03/2026 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n2uvb7F6iaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/03/2026 10:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n2uorpFt543U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had this rejected, presumably as a continuation of some sort of >>>>>> personal
vendetta, as 'off topic':
On 29/03/2026 22:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
This may perhaps be surprising to some, but people often act in a way >>>>>>>> to help the person they love to fulfil their wishes, rather than >>>>>>>> exclusively in their own selfish financial interests. Strange, but >>>>>>>> true.
So, what exactly do you know about his wishes when and after he
married her? We haven't been told here.
Why did he marry her if he didn't intend anything to change?
I cannot imagine any thing more on topic actually than such a pertinent >>>>>> question with substantial legal consequences.
Have the moderators no idea at all of what the group is for?
As is obvious to all but three people, that thread has gone on for far >>>>> too long.
As the other two are moderators, if you wish to continue boring
everyone to death, the solution seems fairly obvious.
You're going to have to apply to be a moderator yourself; so you can >>>>> then pass your own posts before any other moderator can block them
Just one thing, you're not obliged to read anything on the group.
If you do, it's entirely your choice.
No, But the moderators are obliged, to read all of your posts.
No they aren't. They don't have to. It's entirely their choice.
So don't expect me to go 'poor things'.
ulm is supposed to be a discussion forum for those who want to discuss legal >> matters, which the entire thread has been about, including my rejected post. >> You from the outside should have no objection to others going on 'far too
long', unless you are by nature controlling.
Anyway, if threads do get long, it's usually because of trolling non-answers >> to relevant points and deliberate non-clarifications. But it means the
discussion is ongoing and, unless it has rambled off-topic (which my post
certainly wasn't), it should be facilitated, not curtailed by bored and boring
moderators simply because they can't be arsed to moderate properly.
Norman, you are just Roland's and Simon's plaything.
You are being used.
They are simply taking advantage of you, for their own ends.
I am well aware of Roland's trolling, his drip-feeding of information,
non-answering of relevant questions (such as his interest in the estate we've
been talking about), and constantly moving goalposts. I am also aware of the
generally offensive, abusive nature of Mr Parker, and his reams of
cut-and-paste (because he can, presumably) with no actual analysis.
I live, however, in optimistic hope of some improvement.
A situation which could carry on indefinitely; unless
another moderator steps in and gets in there first
What's it to you? As I said, you don't have to read it unless you want to.
I was just trying to answer your question.
A one of few people on the group, moderators aside, who haven't already killfiled you.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:15:52 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (11,196K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,448 |